If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I suppose that would be alright, because I was thinking it would be difficult to shove that much text in there and still have it large enough to read on the map.. yet if you have an empire, you should have plenty of room.

looking at the naming costumization options you had in EU3 and at the screenshots from Vic2 where names are in different not just in size and bend around, I say if these two would get combined we would get one of the most awesome and replayable game ever.

If you want empire names based on the dynastie that forms it then you must pre-define all dynastie-names in the game as possible empire-names.

Well, surely if we have have all the dynasty names in game already, would it really be difficult to do this: each one like a government type in Vicky 2?

Founder of the Lord Strange School of Thought

If I'm speaking in Gold, it means I'm speaking in my capacity as a Demi-Mod.
Any other colour, it's your choice whether to pay attention or not

For the cities which were formerly great have most of them become insignificant; and such as are at present powerful, were weak in the olden time. I shall therefore discourse equally of both, convinced that human happiness never continues long in one stay.

Herodotus of Halicarnassus

"Why are so many rowers atheists? Because anyone who has done a 2K knows that there is no god."

77

Well, surely if we have have all the dynasty names in game already, would it really be difficult to do this: each one like a government type in Vicky 2?

I am not a coder, so I have no idea. But like I already said, it is very unlikely. Not only because how hard or easy it would be to code, but they already have a good system of naming realms. So there is no urgent reason for them to come up with a different system.

I am not a coder, so I have no idea. But like I already said, it is very unlikely. Not only because how hard or easy it would be to code, but they already have a good system of naming realms. So there is no urgent reason for them to come up with a different system.

we could just start with predestined names that the AI sticks to but they could all be 'dynamic" and a player would be able to rename them ingame thus, would preserve realism as AI wouldn't rename things like mad, and would also at the same time allow the player freedom in how he wants to name his own realms, and if the player wants he could save and reload as other nation to change its name for his own flavor to the game too

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but why not just have it be something that appears on the map, Vicky 2 style, like an or "$DYNSATY_ADJ$ Empire," like the Angevin or Hapsburg empires. That way they retain the king tier but still get to be called empires. That way it doesn't have to be pre-defined in the localisation files (I know EU3 supports localisation with tags lke $COUNTRY$ and such, so this should be possible to code) and the ruler can still have the title "King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy, Gascone and Aquitaine, etc. etc." This way, there only needs to be an adjective for each dynasty (which could be defined in the dyansty's section) like so:

Code:

dynasty={
name="von Hapsburg"
adj=Hapsburg
...
}

EDIT: Forgot to say that this would only be for realms of a certain size, not sure how that would be determined though. This way only the truly impressive ones would be "empires" which also leaves the true Empires (Byzantine, Holy Roman, others?) to not be identified by a dynasty and remain the same no matter who is ruling it.

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but why not just have it be something that appears on the map, Vicky 2 style, like an or "$DYNSATY_ADJ$ Empire," like the Angevin or Hapsburg empires. That way they retain the king tier but still get to be called empires. That way it doesn't have to be pre-defined in the localisation files (I know EU3 supports localisation with tags lke $COUNTRY$ and such, so this should be possible to code) and the ruler can still have the title "King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy, Gascone and Aquitaine, etc. etc." This way, there only needs to be an adjective for each dynasty (which could be defined in the dyansty's section) like so:

Code:

dynasty={
name="von Hapsburg"
adj=Hapsburg
...
}

EDIT: Forgot to say that this would only be for realms of a certain size, not sure how that would be determined though. This way only the truly impressive ones would be "empires" which also leaves the true Empires (Byzantine, Holy Roman, others?) to not be identified by a dynasty and remain the same no matter who is ruling it.

This is highly anachronistic. Besides, the "Angevin Empire" was not an empire by any means. It didn't have advanced domestic administration, centralisation, regular army or anything that defines an empire in the Roman sense, which is the sense we give it today.

It was just a bunch of dukedoms and lordships that happened to be all inherited by a man named Henry II. The French royal demesne or the kingdom of Castille had much bigger centralisation and no one would call them "empires".

This is highly anachronistic. Besides, the "Angevin Empire" was not an empire by any means. It didn't have advanced domestic administration, centralisation, regular army or anything that defines an empire in the Roman sense, which is the sense we give it today.

It was just a bunch of dukedoms and lordships that happened to be all inherited by a man named Henry II. The French royal demesne or the kingdom of Castille had much bigger centralisation and no one would call them "empires".

I'm aware it's anachronistic but we're playing a game here. That's why it's only for the map and not an actual title. That way the only true empires are BYZ and HRE (possibly others) while the rest are "empires" belonging to a dynasty. In fact, I said that they would still be kings in title but would rule an "empire." Besides, unless I'm mistaken centralisation has nothing to do with being defined as an empire.

I am not a coder, so I have no idea. But like I already said, it is very unlikely. Not only because how hard or easy it would be to code, but they already have a good system of naming realms. So there is no urgent reason for them to come up with a different system.

Well he brings up quite an interesting point. For this reason I always renamed the countries Fatimids and Seljuk Turks to simply 'Egypt' and 'the Turks'. Also named the other North African countries to simply Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria etc. Because I didn't find it very realistic if the Seljuks died out in my game, while the country's name is still the 'Seljuk Turks'. So if some mechanism could be programmed in the game to name the muslim countries after their dynasties, it would be a great addition.

This is highly anachronistic. Besides, the "Angevin Empire" was not an empire by any means. It didn't have advanced domestic administration, centralisation, regular army or anything that defines an empire in the Roman sense, which is the sense we give it today.

It was just a bunch of dukedoms and lordships that happened to be all inherited by a man named Henry II. The French royal demesne or the kingdom of Castille had much bigger centralisation and no one would call them "empires".

I thought most people just called states empires when they had extensive territory or interests, at least nominally, regardless of whether or not they had particularly advanced or effective administration. Especially when the territory is not that "traditionally" controlled by the central state, eg., the Chinese and Russians are called empires by virtue of being big and/or populous, but the British Empire only came into being when the British (well, the English) started colonizing and conquering overseas territories which were not part of the British Isles.

Exactly. I don't see how the Mongol Empire is in any way comparable by advanced domestic administration, centralisation or regular army to the Roman Empire, yet it is still called Mongol Empire for as long as it expanded. In fact, the suggestion to name them after dynasties is actually a pretty good simplification which would for "random" empires names to be spawned without having to alter any code. The major problem is when an empire which change dynastic hands. That would defeat the purpose of naming it after a Dynasty.

"Chavez is leading his people into better future, after ages of explotation they have something to be happy about. Positive thing is also that he suport good causes all over south america and world too a sign of true greatnes." -Ivio
"Yes, Stalin said the same thing." -Tufto

"I think I'm going insane. I can like FEEL each second and minute passing and it's making me go insane because like I could be building skills in those minutes instead of making a forum post or listening to music or g-chatting with a colleague. I can feel it in my brain and in my body. It's terrible.[...]Anyone else have this?" -EFT
"Only when I read your posts." -trajan

I'm aware it's anachronistic but we're playing a game here. That's why it's only for the map and not an actual title. That way the only true empires are BYZ and HRE (possibly others) while the rest are "empires" belonging to a dynasty. In fact, I said that they would still be kings in title but would rule an "empire." Besides, unless I'm mistaken centralisation has nothing to do with being defined as an empire.

Then, what does?

Usually, we call "empire" a political entity that builds a somehow wide state, considering its initial lenght, especially after taking territories out of their "rightful" property by cultural or traditional means.

But it makes no sense that this "empire" tier may bring any administration improvement or bonus of any kind. That's what I don't like about the whole idea of the Fourth Tier.

Originally Posted by truth is life

I thought most people just called states empires when they had extensive territory or interests, at least nominally, regardless of whether or not they had particularly advanced or effective administration. Especially when the territory is not that "traditionally" controlled by the central state, eg., the Chinese and Russians are called empires by virtue of being big and/or populous, but the British Empire only came into being when the British (well, the English) started colonizing and conquering overseas territories which were not part of the British Isles.

Not at that time. Modern historians like the word "empire" and use it for fast-growing warmonger countries, even if they were tribal confederations (the so-called Mongol Empire, which is usually called Khanate, instead of Empire).

Also, you're not considering that in Chinese, the words referring to forms of government might be completely different in their meaning and significancy. For example, "Empire" is a word that comes from Latin Imperium, which means, more or less, "power over life and death". When the Romans spoke of the lands under the dominion of Rome, they spoke of Imperium Romanum, more or less meaning "Roman Power/Dominion".

In this sense, every nation has an area under its Imperium.

Now, the Greek word for the Roman Empire was Basilea, with totally different ethymology and meaning. Because a language is defined by the evolution of the peoples speaking it, and since English or other Western European languages never got in constant contact with China until less than two centuries ago, there is no actual word in English that could translate the full meaning of the Chinese Huangdi. There can be a rough translation by the word Emperor, but each language branch has its own titles with its own meaning.

The Russian knyaz is sometimes translated as Grand Duke and sometimes as Grand Prince. They are kings by all means, in their power and capacities, but traditionally, since the royal title was something important and given by religious authorities at some point, there has only been one Russian king before the Tsar: the King of Galitzia.

It's all a matter of translation and actual meaning of the word, so putting other culture's "Empires" as examples is not a good idea.

In Medieval Western Europe, which is what we're talking about, an Empire was just a descendant of the Roman Empire. There had to be claim. And, if I'm not mistaken, the only serious Empire that didn't claim ascendancy to the Roman Empire was the French Empire under Napoleon. The rest had their "antecessors" reaching the Romans.

Usually, we call "empire" a political entity that builds a somehow wide state, considering its initial lenght, especially after taking territories out of their "rightful" property by cultural or traditional means.

But it makes no sense that this "empire" tier may bring any administration improvement or bonus of any kind. That's what I don't like about the whole idea of the Fourth Tier.

1) I don't recall saying they should get "any administration improvement or bonus of any kind." Rather, I said that there should only be the set empires (Byzantine, HRE, possibly others) and all other "empires" are merely called so on the map, not in their titles.

2) An empire is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

Originally Posted by OED

I. Imperial rule or dignity.

1. Supreme and extensive political dominion; esp. that exercised by an ‘emperor’ (in the earlier senses: see EMPEROR 1, 2), or by a sovereign state over its dependencies.

3. The dignity or position of an emperor; also, {dag}the reign of an emperor (obs.); = EMPERORSHIP.

4. A government in which the sovereign has the title of emperor.

II. That which is subject to imperial rule.

5. a. An extensive territory (esp. an aggregate of many separate states) under the sway of an emperor or supreme ruler; also, an aggregate of subject territories ruled over by a sovereign state.

Thus, we could have something where a 4th tier (the already pre-determined ones, mind you) are suzerains over the king tier. This could stem from a system of degrees of vassalship with suzerainty (or something similar) being the least direct form of control and the only possible form of vassalship for kings to emperors. Unless I'm mistaken this is similar to the Exarchates in the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps this could be coupled with emperors not being able to hold king titles? I know the HRE was Romanorum Rex so maybe this could be a special case where the heir inherits the title King of the Romans and every time it has to be upgraded to the HRE title by the Pope (and if the Pope refuses this paves the way for anti-Popes)

Not at that time. Modern historians like the word "empire" and use it for fast-growing warmonger countries, even if they were tribal confederations (the so-called Mongol Empire, which is usually called Khanate, instead of Empire).

Also, you're not considering that in Chinese, the words referring to forms of government might be completely different in their meaning and significancy. For example, "Empire" is a word that comes from Latin Imperium, which means, more or less, "power over life and death". When the Romans spoke of the lands under the dominion of Rome, they spoke of Imperium Romanum, more or less meaning "Roman Power/Dominion".

In this sense, every nation has an area under its Imperium.

Now, the Greek word for the Roman Empire was Basilea, with totally different ethymology and meaning. Because a language is defined by the evolution of the peoples speaking it, and since English or other Western European languages never got in constant contact with China until less than two centuries ago, there is no actual word in English that could translate the full meaning of the Chinese Huangdi. There can be a rough translation by the word Emperor, but each language branch has its own titles with its own meaning.

The Russian knyaz is sometimes translated as Grand Duke and sometimes as Grand Prince. They are kings by all means, in their power and capacities, but traditionally, since the royal title was something important and given by religious authorities at some point, there has only been one Russian king before the Tsar: the King of Galitzia.

It's all a matter of translation and actual meaning of the word, so putting other culture's "Empires" as examples is not a good idea.

In Medieval Western Europe, which is what we're talking about, an Empire was just a descendant of the Roman Empire. There had to be claim. And, if I'm not mistaken, the only serious Empire that didn't claim ascendancy to the Roman Empire was the French Empire under Napoleon. The rest had their "antecessors" reaching the Romans.

3) It doesn't matter that much whether they claimed succession from the Romans or even what they called themselves. The Chinese word may not be a direct translation to "empire" but that is still what they are called. This is a game and most certainly not a history/historiography paper. The Byzantines were never called the Byzantines contemporaneously but that's what they are known as so that's what they are called in the game.

Not at that time. Modern historians like the word "empire" and use it for fast-growing warmonger countries, even if they were tribal confederations (the so-called Mongol Empire, which is usually called Khanate, instead of Empire).

So? We're not playing "at that time", we're playing now. Why use 800+ year-old conventions?

Originally Posted by Cèsar de Quart

Also, you're not considering that in Chinese, the words referring to forms of government might be completely different in their meaning and significancy. For example, "Empire" is a word that comes from Latin Imperium, which means, more or less, "power over life and death". When the Romans spoke of the lands under the dominion of Rome, they spoke of Imperium Romanum, more or less meaning "Roman Power/Dominion".

In this sense, every nation has an area under its Imperium.

Interesting etymological information, but totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Cèsar de Quart

Now, the Greek word for the Roman Empire was Basilea, with totally different ethymology and meaning. Because a language is defined by the evolution of the peoples speaking it, and since English or other Western European languages never got in constant contact with China until less than two centuries ago, there is no actual word in English that could translate the full meaning of the Chinese Huangdi. There can be a rough translation by the word Emperor, but each language branch has its own titles with its own meaning.

The Russian knyaz is sometimes translated as Grand Duke and sometimes as Grand Prince. They are kings by all means, in their power and capacities, but traditionally, since the royal title was something important and given by religious authorities at some point, there has only been one Russian king before the Tsar: the King of Galitzia.

It's all a matter of translation and actual meaning of the word, so putting other culture's "Empires" as examples is not a good idea.

If there wasn't a feeling that those Empires were, in fact, Empires, then the titles wouldn't have been translated as "Empire", but as the similar (but less power-implying) Kingdom. If the "Empire" of China consisted of half-a-dozen rocks in the Sea of Japan with a million people living there, then we would probably be calling it the "Kingdom" of China, regardless of what their words meant. Or if the "Tsardom" or "Empire" of Russia consisted of Moscow and a few outlying suburbs, then it would be called the "Kingdom" of Russia, again regardless of what the local inhabitants felt.

It was mainly because China was rich and populated, Russia was huge, and Japan was (also) rich and populated (not to mention a bit mysterious and cut off) that each of those realms got to call themselves "Empires". I know at least the Russians also gave themselves the title Emperor straight up, rather than waiting for translators, which is also a factor.

Note that despite the title "Shananshah" at least plausibly translating to "Emperor" and the Pahlavi use of the same in the title of their Iranian state, Iran was never known as an Empire, because it wasn't rich, populated, or large enough.

Originally Posted by Cèsar de Quart

In Medieval Western Europe, which is what we're talking about, an Empire was just a descendant of the Roman Empire. There had to be claim. And, if I'm not mistaken, the only serious Empire that didn't claim ascendancy to the Roman Empire was the French Empire under Napoleon. The rest had their "antecessors" reaching the Romans.

No, it was a state which claimed to be a descendant of the Roman Empire. Anyone could make that claim, and if they had enough swords backing them, make it stick. The Carolingian (and later Holy Roman) "Empire" is a good example--the only connection it truly had with Rome were the ambassadors it sent to the Pope. I mean, the HRE barely even contained any ex-Roman lands. Yet they got the Imperial title, all the same. No one's saying it oughtn't be tough and difficult to become an "Emperor", and the last poster wasn't even suggesting becoming an Empire or Emperor at all, just titling your realm that on the map if it was big enough (which it would undoubtedly be titled 800 years later, anyways).

The name, or words, rulers picked for their titles were not only plain descriptions of the state in question, but were political assertions. The official title for an Ottoman Emperor for instance was, say if the ruler was Murat; "Padishah Sultan Murat Khan". (To my knowledge, Padishah is the Persian for 'king of kings', Sultan is the Arabic for 'king' and Khan is the Turkish for 'king'). So it was more than just the name of the title, it was different than how the historians would like to use it, but in its day, it was an assertion in which the ruler proclaimed himself the king of Persian, Arabic and Turkish people, be it rightful or not. There is also the case where, for some time, Electors of Branderburg carefully used the title "King in Prussia", and not "King of Prussia". These all may be examples out of CK's time frame, but my point is titles are political things, rather than being etymological, at least for the people that used them.

So my wish is that, if there is going to be a title "Emperor" in CK2, and if you can build up ahistorical empires during the game, it should work in those lines. If some guy says "I will not be called king any more, I want the rest of the world know me from now on as an emperor, and my state as an empire", I don't want the other guys to think, "well, dictionary of english language defines an empire as this and that, and well, he fulfils those conditions, so we should call him that". I want this to be a political assertion, and I want to see some political consequences there, whatever they would be in game terms.

The name, or words, rulers picked for their titles were not only plain descriptions of the state in question, but were political assertions. The official title for an Ottoman Emperor for instance was, say if the ruler was Murat; "Padishah Sultan Murat Khan". (To my knowledge, Padishah is the Persian for 'king of kings', Sultan is the Arabic for 'king' and Khan is the Turkish for 'king'). So it was more than just the name of the title, it was different than how the historians would like to use it, but in its day, it was an assertion in which the ruler proclaimed himself the king of Persian, Arabic and Turkish people, be it rightful or not. There is also the case where, for some time, Electors of Branderburg carefully used the title "King in Prussia", and not "King of Prussia". These all may be examples out of CK's time frame, but my point is titles are political things, rather than being etymological, at least for the people that used them.

So my wish is that, if there is going to be a title "Emperor" in CK2, and if you can build up ahistorical empires during the game, it should work in those lines. If some guy says "I will not be called king any more, I want the rest of the world know me from now on as an emperor, and my state as an empire", I don't want the other guys to think, "well, dictionary of english language defines an empire as this and that, and well, he fulfils those conditions, so we should call him that". I want this to be a political assertion, and I want to see some political consequences there, whatever they would be in game terms.

I do like the distinction that you make regarding the Ottomans. An emperor is a king of kings or a king who dominates over other kings or peoples. An emperor for me, whether he uses the title or not, is the monarch of many peoples.

In an administrative sense, a "real" empire has moved beyond feudalism. It has some bureaucratic qualities and there should be imperial provinces or cities that are ruled by governors whose appointment is determined actively by the emperor (lots of things to do with those lazy courtiers as a bonus). In this way, an empire (like the Ottomans later and before the Byzantines) is like a republic with a strong, hereditary executive. After all, this was the origin of the oldest duchies and counties that became hereditary over time as centralization and stability broke down. In short, you can have something of a civil service, drawn from the clergy and lower nobility.

So, for my idea of how to go from feudal kingdom to empire, you should have a certain level of centralization and government technology (if we have EU-type research and policy sliders). There is, in short, a qualitative difference between king and emperor, not just the quantitative difference of having so many provinces or vassals. And you get to wear purple

The name, or words, rulers picked for their titles were not only plain descriptions of the state in question, but were political assertions. The official title for an Ottoman Emperor for instance was, say if the ruler was Murat; "Padishah Sultan Murat Khan". (To my knowledge, Padishah is the Persian for 'king of kings', Sultan is the Arabic for 'king' and Khan is the Turkish for 'king'). So it was more than just the name of the title, it was different than how the historians would like to use it, but in its day, it was an assertion in which the ruler proclaimed himself the king of Persian, Arabic and Turkish people, be it rightful or not. There is also the case where, for some time, Electors of Branderburg carefully used the title "King in Prussia", and not "King of Prussia". These all may be examples out of CK's time frame, but my point is titles are political things, rather than being etymological, at least for the people that used them.

So my wish is that, if there is going to be a title "Emperor" in CK2, and if you can build up ahistorical empires during the game, it should work in those lines. If some guy says "I will not be called king any more, I want the rest of the world know me from now on as an emperor, and my state as an empire", I don't want the other guys to think, "well, dictionary of english language defines an empire as this and that, and well, he fulfils those conditions, so we should call him that". I want this to be a political assertion, and I want to see some political consequences there, whatever they would be in game terms.

This. The title Emperor should not just be empty words. Given the period in which the game is set (and given that the focus is on the Christian world) then the most obvious claim made by declaring oneself Emperor is that of rightful descent from the Roman Emperors.

Originally Posted by truth is life

So? We're not playing "at that time", we're playing now. Why use 800+ year-old conventions?

Because it reflects the situation at the time in which the game is set. You may as well ask: Why not have atheism?

Originally Posted by truth is life

... it was a state which claimed to be a descendant of the Roman Empire. Anyone could make that claim, and if they had enough swords backing them, make it stick. The Carolingian (and later Holy Roman) "Empire" is a good example--the only connection it truly had with Rome were the ambassadors it sent to the Pope. I mean, the HRE barely even contained any ex-Roman lands. Yet they got the Imperial title, all the same. No one's saying it oughtn't be tough and difficult to become an "Emperor", and the last poster wasn't even suggesting becoming an Empire or Emperor at all, just titling your realm that on the map if it was big enough (which it would undoubtedly be titled 800 years later, anyways).

Yes, it was just a claim. But as pirt points out these claims had massive political consequences. And the HRE were almost universally acknowledged as the heirs to Rome throughout Western Europe in this period. They appear in lists of Emperors running from Roman times composed in Spain, England, France, Germany and Italy (obviously), the Holy Land and Iceland (and probably a few more I don't have to hand). The fact that the HRE did not contain much of the Roman Empire is inconsequential. The HRE embodied the supreme secular authority in the same way that the Roman Emperors had done.

@RedRooster81

I disagree with your comments that an Empire should be qualatively different from a kingdom, at least in the criteria you describe. Centralisation and administration should have relatively little to do with your ability to form an Empire in this period (they may well be more important in the modern period). Rather, it should be a political statement with political consequences.

So? We're not playing "at that time", we're playing now. Why use 800+ year-old conventions?

Bollocks, this game is supposed to provide a historical flavour and experience. Accuracy is what gives it its flavour.

Alternate history is not about making up things, is about taking the patterns you have at a certain date, alter some parameters and imagine or see what's gonna happen. The appearance of a Feudal "Imperial State" with no connection to Rome makes no sense at all.

Note that despite the title "Shananshah" at least plausibly translating to "Emperor" and the Pahlavi use of the same in the title of their Iranian state, Iran was never known as an Empire, because it wasn't rich, populated, or large enough.

This is not true. Historians also speak of the Venetian Empire, and it only contained some isles and coastlands in the Eastern Mediterranean. Also they speak of the Aragonese Empire (but not anymore, it's too pretentious and pointless)...

In the end, calling some country an "empire" or not is a matter of tradition. In Spanish, the Egyptian Kingdoms (the Old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom, etc) are called "Empires".

***

Originally Posted by wobbit

I disagree with your comments that an Empire should be qualatively different from a kingdom, at least in the criteria you describe. Centralisation and administration should have relatively little to do with your ability to form an Empire in this period (they may well be more important in the modern period). Rather, it should be a political statement with political consequences.

Bollocks, this game is supposed to provide a historical flavour and experience. Accuracy is what gives it its flavour.

Does that mean we get to have the Byzantine Empire renamed to the "Eastern Roman Empire" or even "Roman Empire"? The Byzantine name was given in the 18th centry, well after the time of it's fall.

Alternate history is not about making up things, is about taking the patterns you have at a certain date, alter some parameters and imagine or see what's gonna happen. The appearance of a Feudal "Imperial State" with no connection to Rome makes no sense at all.

I suppose that makes sense, since Emperor comes from the Roman word, Imperator. But the thing is, how tied does it have to be? Do you need Pope approval? Do you need to destroy the HRE first to declare yourself an Emperor/Imperator of somewhere else?

Originally Posted by wobbit

I disagree with your comments that an Empire should be qualatively different from a kingdom, at least in the criteria you describe. Centralisation and administration should have relatively little to do with your ability to form an Empire in this period (they may well be more important in the modern period). Rather, it should be a political statement with political consequences.

Sounds good to me. I do believe a person needs at least a certain minimum in provinces and prestige to declare himself an Emperor, for gameplay reasons. Would declaring yourself an Emperor give you automatic BB? It does sort of feel that way, because it's almost like a power-trip and it could make the neighbors a bit antsy.

Does that mean we get to have the Byzantine Empire renamed to the "Eastern Roman Empire" or even "Roman Empire"? The Byzantine name was given in the 18th centry, well after the time of it's fall.

I always rename it to "Empire of the Romans", literal translation for "Basilea ton Rhomaion". Why Eastern? The Western didn't exist anymor at the Greek's eyes. They were the true Romans.

I suppose that makes sense, since Emperor comes from the Roman word, Imperator. But the thing is, how tied does it have to be? Do you need Pope approval? Do you need to destroy the HRE first to declare yourself an Emperor/Imperator of somewhere else?

Not really. Several historical monarchs declared themselves to be Emperors in the Middle Ages, but the title never lasted one more generation. Maud, enemy of Stephen of Blois, proclaimed herself Empress. But her son Henry II was crowned King of England, not Emperor. Henry FitzEmpress was not an Emperor. Why? Because it was pretentious and had no meaning.

Alfonso of León also intitled himself Emperor of All Spain. Most of the Spanish monarchs and sovereign lords pledged to him, but it had no real effect. The title died with him, if anyone ever took it seriously.

But my point is: there is only one Emperor. There was Maud, Empress of England, and Alfonso, Emperor of Spain, but then there was THE Emperor, the Holy Roman Emperor. Neither Maud nor Alfonso had Imperial authority, they just had fancy titles. The HREmperor did had specific and wider power than a king.

And here is where the issue lies: no one should take this holy (because it's really holy in Christian theology -- every king has a little of priest on him, but the Emperor has a little of Pope) authority unless it's his successor or has claim through election by the Diet or the Pope.

Sounds good to me. I do believe a person needs at least a certain minimum in provinces and prestige to declare himself an Emperor, for gameplay reasons. Would declaring yourself an Emperor give you automatic BB? It does sort of feel that way, because it's almost like a power-trip and it could make the neighbors a bit antsy.

It would depend. As I said before, Alfonso of León recieved homage from other Spanish lords and kings.

Still, I'm against making it a Fourth Tier. Maybe it can be some sort of decision, a very rare one.

Still, I'm against making it a Fourth Tier. Maybe it can be some sort of decision, a very rare one.

I think there should be a 4th tier but, as you said, very rare. Mayhap two titles: Roman Emperor (for the Byzantines) and Western Emperor (for the HRE) [names obviously not decided upon, just possible suggestions]. The HRE title could be contested by decision with enough prestige and/or piety and high relations with the Pope/low relations with the current HRE. Something similar could be done for the Orthodox countries if/when Constantinople falls. The claims wouldn't be inheritable so that way if a powerful ruler claims to be the real Emperor his pathetic son won't be able to carry on the claim since nobody would back him. However, the actual title itself would be heritable.